And if guns arent the deterant to a bad guy with a gun...why do we call cops? Do bad guys fear the uniform? Or the threat of being shot because they know a cop has a gun?
Wondering how the left media will cover the Texas church shooting.
- Thread starter Gmoney4WW
- Start date
Youre right...all the christians should just wear full kevlar body armor now to church...what a doofus.
I'd love to see the study that was found in. Also, they're probably 1000's of times more likely to be put in a situation where the use of a fire arm is plausible than a normal permit holder.
I'd rather have no people shot in churches. The guy shouldn't have been able to buy a gun for multiple reasons.... If he doesn't have a gun, three people (including himself) aren't dead.
The "ban all guns" side is extremely small these days. And it's simply not going to happen because it is unconstitutional. The only way it does happen is if you get some judges who believe the 2A is specifically referring to maintaining a militia. The NRA constantly always picks out the phrase "shall not be infringed" while conveniently leaving out the "well-regulated". Its the same with faux Christians who pick and choose Bible verse to back up whatever they hate that particular day.
I agree with you 100% on banning assault/military style weapons and a national registry. Hell, we all have to be on a national registry to fly (this is what real ID is). The NRA hates both of these because they get money from manufacturers of guns, ammo, special attachments to lobby for them so the sales pipeline stays open.
The Texas law is also curious...and I'll admit I don't know 100% what it says, but the way it has been covered in the news is that the new law allows for people to carry a weapon in church...which sounds like the churches are not given an option to say they don't allow weapons on property, like private businesses do. 1st, how does this not infringe upon the separation of church and state?
I realize this situation had a more positive outcome because of a trained, armed person who happened to be in the right place at the right time (who by all accounts is a definitive bad a$$ with a pistol). That's like 1 out of 20 similar incidents. There is plenty of evidence that shows having an armed, trained individual present when a shooting happens won't stop them from shooting multiple victims. While the NRA would love to have you believe this what the outcome would be every time, it's not. This was an exception.
This^ Most gunmen in these situations have a death wish. Their rampage is usually their last desperate attempt to get someone to notice them and their pain, whatever their pain may be. What saved the majority of the people in this congregation was this guy ha d a pistol. It also sounds as if he has specific targets as a vendetta: a deacon, and a church security team member. Also says he was wearing a disguise so he was not recognized. The congregation as a whole knew who the suspect was and apparently had asked him to not come around anymore. The guy who shot him, in addition to being a firearms trainer, was a member of the church security team. My church has a security team and I know at least 1-2 of them carry a weapon as part of that duty (good to know one of them is also a school resource officer in my son's school). Our church did this in response to the shooting carried out by the guy near Austin 2-3 years ago. I get why lots of places are doing this. Question should be why they have to and when did the NRA decide to corrupt our society with this push for arming all?
No idea, but his weapons should have been seized and destroyed when he plead guilty to multiple felonies in Oklahoma and his rights to buy them in the future should have been removed. It sounds like he wasn't supposed to be able to buy the shotgun he used to put a shells into parishioners... but that restriction wasn't enforced. The same thing happened when the guy that caused the Abbot law in Texas to be signed. The Air Force dishonorably discharged him and he never should have been able to buy a gun, but he wasn't restricted from buying many multiple arms as the Air Force flubbed putting him in the database.
Sounds like, at the very least, we really need to improve or retool the system we have in place to prevent people that shouldn't have guns from having guns.
And this is the NRA's argument...you'll never really be able to stop them from getting guns so we need more good guys with guns. Which makes it easier for the bad guys to get guns. It's a terrible cycle.
First, illegal or unlicensed possession of a weapon should carry some long term prison sentences. Second, proficiency training and extensive background checks including a mental health check should be required and updated every 4 years (similar to a driver's license or many professional certifications). These are the simplest things that don't hinder the ability of law-abiding citizens from owning a gun. It slows down the black market for guns somewhat and with heavy criminal penalties, a better deterrent. And the penalties should apply to the person who sells or transfers a firearm illegally. The NRA purports to wanting to keep law abiding citizens safe, but it a poorly veiled attempt as everyone can see the NRA only cares about the bottom line. The more guns sold the more Winchester and other arms and ammo manufacturers keep paying the NRA to lobby on their behalf. Stem those sales and Wayne LaPierre is not flying everywhere on a $10M jet nor does he own multiple mansions.
And maybe this issue along with climate change is stemmed a little if you get rid of the lobby money out of politics.
I'm also on the fence about private gun sales. I mean, I could go out in my state and sell my handgun to a private party tomorrow with no background check.
I at least think there should be some way for private parties to check if their buyer is in the national database. I don't want to sell my gun to someone who's going to use it to harm an innocent. And I also don't want to pay a tax just to have the transaction go through an FFL.
I at least think there should be some way for private parties to check if their buyer is in the national database. I don't want to sell my gun to someone who's going to use it to harm an innocent. And I also don't want to pay a tax just to have the transaction go through an FFL.
The tax is a whole other issue and one that state governments have been trying to get at for a while, not specifically for guns, but any private sale of goods online. The eBay commerce might add up to anywhere between $100M-$1B in sales tax each year depending on the state and the volume. I know Amazon collects taxes on most transactions as do a lot of other online retailers, but I have yet to see (or be charged) one for eBay, Craigslist, etc. Craigslist might be a little more difficult as many of those transactions end up happening in person and not through an online sales transaction.
I also think if the law about sellers and manufacturers not being able to be held civilly or criminally liable disappeared, many of the illegal sales would disappear. Sellers would want to cover their bases and make sure they did their due diligence to not be included in any such suits.
I agree; however, as someone who is pondering selling a gun... having to go through a third party to do a check can substantially limit who your buyers are. Unless EVERYONE was having to go through a third party to make sure that the buyers were approveable. It puts honest / thoughtful sellers at a disadvantage in terms of resale value for wanting to do the right thing.
I think I would either make all sellers go through third parties (except that's just putting an unnecessary middle man in the process) or provide an avenue for private parties to check a buyer's eligibility and mandate that a check has to be made prior to sale. I can't understand how with today's technology this is still an issue.
Everyone needs to go through a central check DB. I don't know why this is so hard for anyone to make happen. If you get pulled over by a cop in Illinois, he knows in less than 5 minutes if you have a warrant in OK (true story, not mine though). How hard is it to have a central background check DB that needs to be updated every 4-5 years. Put it at the cost of the owner and make it affordable. I believe right now I pay $30 to renew my DL in OK, and when I onboarded at TCC, they paid $27 for the comprehensive background check. It took about 45 minutes. Give Drs. the ability to add notes on mental health to the DB or red flag someone for mental health concerns, same as law enforcement. If the person wants the red flag for mental health removed, have him see a state certified doc (not his friend) to have a comprehensive evaluation and the doc can decide if it should be removed. It's not that hard for them to figure out...pretty sure I could build a comprehensive DB in a few days to accomplish this.
Similar threads
